Greenspan: Sequester cuts will not be horrendous for the economy

[Politico]

The piggy public sector could be gutted and most of the productive private sector would not even notice if nobody told them about it. If anything, confidence would soar if the gutting resulted in a balanced budget coupled with the potential for lowered taxation in the long-run (e.g., late 1990s).

[Politico]

Assume that they are correct--uncertainty is over.

Uncertainty is not over until Obamacare starts (or ends if it proves to be a disaster) and fiscal responsibility is restored to Washington. Truth be told, uncertainty will not be over until Obama is out of the White House.

[Politico]

Assume that they are correct--uncertainty is over.

Uncertainty is not over until Obamacare starts (or ends if it proves to be a disaster) and fiscal responsibility is restored to Washington. Truth be told, uncertainty will not be over until Obama is out of the White House.

There is no uncertainty about Obamacare.  Businesses know what they have to do to comply with the law and most have already made the necessary changes.

Whether you think it works or not is one thing, but the uncertainty had nothing to do with the success of the program.  Only about what businesses would have to do to get in the guidelines.

As for your second comment, private sector does not care about the deficits.  They only care about taxes.  Taxes have been resolved.

On the contrary, taxes are far from resolved. They are resolved for 2013, but they are far from resolved beyond that. The reason: Our culture of debt and deficit-spending.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dream on.

[Politico]

How much Obamacare will actually cost is far from resolved isn't it?

Absolutely. For example, while some large firms may have somewhat of a grip on what is going to happen thanks to extensive research, small businesses are nowhere near certain of the implicit and explicit costs involved (they are becoming aware of expected explicit costs, as projected by Washington Piggies, but those are not guarantees of course). Truth be told, this information will not become communicated to all economic players until once the program actually starts. In that sense, the sooner the program can start, the better. That said, if it proves to be disastrous and associated with a subsequent recession, Obama and Democrats are going to be ostracized the way George W. Bush and Republicans were in 2008. From a purely political standpoint, it may be in the interests of Republicans to push back the start date to the middle of 2015 as a calculated gamble. Democrats ought to be holding steadfast on the current start date, of course.

[Politico]

Obamacare is going to cause a recession? LOL!

There is a difference between something being the cause of a recession and something being associated with a recession (e.g., Bush is associated with the 2008 recession, but Bush did not cause the 2008 recession). If a recession follows the introduction of Obamacare, regardless of whether or not Obamacare was a cause of the recession it will be politically associated with the recession, which will cost Democrats at the ballot box.

There is a strong possibility we will have another recession before 2016, and it is virtually guaranteed we will have one before 2020 (Why, you ask? The last recession officially ended in 2009, and we have never enjoyed 11 straight years of economic growth). By pushing back Obamacare to the middle of 2015, and assuming the next recession does not start this year or the next, Republicans probably stand a better chance of associating the next recession with Obamacare, regardless of whether the recession starts in 2015, 2016, or 2017. Fair or not, it's part of hardball politics.